Down wind faster than the wind

[spork]

WOW! humber has come up with even more powerful gibberish - but still not a single person that will agree with a single thing he proposes. Imagine that!

Seriously humber, is it your contention that you're the only one on earth that understands anything? How about one straight answer?

 

[humber]

You must initialize the accelerometer in the same way in both tests, at steady state on the surfaces.

Even so, that means the wind must stay at one speed, indefinitely.

Ah-ha! You have accidentally said something that is true.

That's right. You must first assert your cauthority as to what is moving or not. By your own rules, I can deny your assertion. A trivial consequence, and the result of removing all information until discrimination becomes impossible.

You do not understand the claim. Initializing some instrument off the belt and then carrying it onto the belt can introduce an external reference.

Telling me that is an external influence. The accelerometer does not need to be intialised. It is an absolute detector of acceleration. If the belt slows, I can detect that. Motion of the planet beneath will not do that.

 

[humber]

WOW! humber has come up with even more powerful gibberish - but still not a single person that will agree with a single thing he proposes. Imagine that!

Seriously humber, is it your contention that you're the only one on earth that understands anything? How about one straight answer?

Playing to the public audience is your best bet, I suppose.
When I challenge you directly, one return post sees you running away.
There's a "steady state" history of that.

 

[Modified]

No, it does not have zero KE relative to you. It has zero velocity relative to you.
What you have done is given another example of how you achieve the same result.
Your challenge is to show that KE or momentum are relative. How does that work? Where does it go?

Finally you have been completely clear on this. This is a serious misunderstanding. It's the same as taking speed measurements in different reference frames and asking "Where does the speed go?". We really need no more discussion until you read an intro physics text.

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

Humber:

Yes, Geostationary orbit. The system's designers seem to be more than a match for you, as they have solved all those problems. Actually not.

He can't even resist contradicting himself in consecutive sentences.

JB

 

[Dan O.]

is it your contention that you're the only one on earth that understands anything?

He is quite probably the only one that understands anything he says. The rest of us can only attempt to make sense of it in our own frame of reference.

It reminds me of an interesting challenge to try and establish communications with aliens from a distant world. When you have no common reference, even trivial concepts like left and right are meaningless.

 

[humber]

The skates will be at maximum drag when the skater is at maximum speed, but the force provided by the parachute will be less than what it provides when accelerating the skater.

The question of whether the force provided by the parachute when the skater is at maximum speed in a particular wind is easily answered. Just provide the skater with a means of reeling in the parachute. If the skater's speed stays the same, then the parachute's force is at a maximum in that wind. If the skater's speed increases (which it will while slowing the parachute even more), then the force wasn't at a maximum but was merely balancing the drag of the skates.

If the skater can reel in the parachute fast enough, the skater can now move faster than the wind that is powering the parachute.

Paradoxical. The force produced by the skates is a result of motion, produced BY that force. "Attempts" by the parachite to pull the skater faster, are met by an increased opposing force. If there were more force to be had, then the skater would be at increased speed that suggests.
Attempt to extract more force by increasing the load, will be in vain. The parachute will slow in response.

Another way for the skater to move faster than the wind is to have a pulley attached to the parachute with the skater holding both ends of the rope with a loop on one end of the rope. When the skater reaches maximum speed in the wind, they throw the loop over a stake pounded into the ice and hold on to the other end of the rope! Crack The Whip with a parachute!

[/QUOTE]
Another way is to put a 2:1 gearbox between the chute and the skater. (Skater rope is twice the velocity of the parachute rope). Then put that gearbox on a trolley. Agree?

 

[ThinAirDesigns]

So apparently to humber, KE depends on some sort of history. The bullet sitting on the table next to me may or may not have KE relative to me. If I set it there it probably does not, but if it very recently left the barrel of the gun it *will* have KE relative to me.

Tell me humber -- if I reach out and pick up the bullet on the table, roll it around in my fingertips and observe it closely, how will I know if it has KE relative to me or not?

Things are very interesting in the humberverse.

JB

 

[humber]

Finally you have been completely clear on this. This is a serious misunderstanding. It's the same as taking speed measurements in different reference frames and asking "Where does the speed go?". We really need no more discussion until you read an intro physics text.

No, that won't do. Yes, I know what the text books say, but that is an abstracted concept. There is no physical counterpart. It is quite clear that the cart has no KE from any observer save the belt. This is false reasoning. The KE cannot change just because of change of reference. In one world the KE can do work, in the other not. I think you can see that this would be a window for perpetual motion.

A=B A/B =1 B/A =1 . Are the last two different?

 

[humber]

Humber:


He can't even resist contradicting himself in consecutive sentences.

JB

That's precedes the remark about the way the time is updated.
Still, if helps you avoid all the 'dumb' questions that you find such a struggle to answer.

 

[Modified]

The KE cannot change just because of change of reference.

That is the very definition of KE. It doesn't "change", it is a relative measurement. You are saying something analogous to "The speed cannot change just because of change of reference."

In one world the KE can do work, in the other not.

Do work by doing what? Taking KE measurements from a different frame will not affect the amount of KE that can be converted to another form of energy for any process. Try to come up with an example where it will. Keep in mind that all KE values must be measured from the same reference frame, you can't mix frames as you are fond of doing, or use objects that have a different velocity in the two frames (as you are fond of doing with the earth).

 

[fredriks]

Humber a question for you. Which one of the following is correct.

Do you understand physics but like to troll by writing nonsense on the internet?

Do you believe you understand physics and believe that your writings are correct?

Do you know that you don't know anything about physics but like to troll by writing nonsense on the internet?

I guess it is one of the last two alternatives.

 

[humber]

He is quite probably the only one that understands anything he says. The rest of us can only attempt to make sense of it in our own frame of reference.

It reminds me of an interesting challenge to try and establish communications with aliens from a distant world. When you have no common reference, even trivial concepts like left and right are meaningless.

[/QUOTE]
Ouch!. An inappropriate metaphor. Here the communication is established. It is your concepts that are meaningless. It's not the mathematics, nor the physics, but your nascent ability to discriminate fact from BS.
Anyway a colorful anecdote to cover up the problems with the belt, GPS and whatnot.

 

[spork]

Playing to the public audience is your best bet, I suppose.
When I challenge you directly, one return post sees you running away.

You have never "challenged me directly" in any way whatever. I've never run away in any way whatever. I have one simple question for you:

Do you contend that you're the only person in the world that understands basic physics? You can come back with more wise-ass B.S. or you can answer the question.

Given that you have never answered a single question that anyone has asked, I feel reasonable certain I know what form your response will take.

 

[sol invictus]

No, it does not have zero KE relative to you. It has zero velocity relative to you.

You've contradicted yourself. KE = (1/2)mv². If v=0, KE=0.

Your challenge is to show that KE or momentum are relative. How does that work? Where does it go?

That's been explained probably 50 times to you already. And it doesn't "go" anywhere - if Moscow is 30 miles east of my current location, and I travel 40 miles east so that it's 10 miles west, where did those miles go?

Two objects in the air:
Object A: 7J wrt ground
Object B: 3J wrt ground
Total 10J
A relative to B 4J
B relative to A 4J (-4J??)
Total 8J
That's what I get, if I use your methods. Please explain.

Totally wrong. And -4J... you have no clue.

If I have 3 objects, does the KE circulate with the observer? What if there are 10E6 objects? How is the information conveyed over distance as the viewer moves about?

You have no idea what "reference frame" means.

This is really boring.

 

[humber]

Humber a question for you. Which one of the following is correct.
Do you understand physics but like to troll by writing nonsense on the internet?

Not nonsense. Get an academic authority that you personally respect, to tell you that the treadmill is what it is claimed to be. Unless you try that, you are fooling yourself.
You don't get it. It's not physics. It's much simpler than that. You are being deceived. What none of you do is ever complete a point. You challenge me, I fire back, then you all quite when things get close to looking like you might be wrong.

Do you believe you understand physics and believe that your writings are correct?

Inadvertent errors over so many posts aside, yes, 100%.

Do you know that you don't know anything about physics but like to troll by writing nonsense on the internet?

I guess it is one of the last two alternatives.

James Randi could show you in a minute, what may take me some time.
What I an telling you Fredriks, is that you are being deceived. That's the real point. Spork is trolling the internet to find out how many fish he can catch with his video bait, and the usual BS.
I may not help those in the net, but may help some avoid the bait.

There are at least 3 groups here;
(1) Those generating pseudo-scientific BS for their own benefit
(2) Those who genuinely believe said BS, but should know better.
(3) Those not well enough informed to know they are being deceived.
(4) Those that are defending the case even though the think that it is BS.

I have to tell you, that if you take the treadmill seriously you may like to consider what Einstein had to say about locality.

"The following idea characterises the relative independence of objects far apart in space (A and B): external influence on A has no direct influence on B; this is known as the Principle of Local Action, which is used consistently only in field theory. If this axiom were to be completely abolished, the idea of the existence of quasienclosed systems, and thereby the postulation of laws which can be checked empirically in the accepted sense, would become impossible."

Einstein also had a "common sense" view of the world. Only pseudo-intellectuals think otherwise. The idea of relative kinetic energy, that is the literal interpretation of that idea, is silly. It's magic.

The Scottish anthropologist James Frazer wrote:-
If we analyze the principles of thought on which magic is based, we shall find they may be expressed in two laws; first....; and second that two objects, having once been in contact with each other, continue to exert a mutual influence after the connection has been severed.

Yes, carts at windspeed, one touched so, carry all their attributes back to a treadmill. It's fantasy physics. The object of many here, is to make sure I don't show you that.

 

[spork]

I'm beginning to believe humber believes he's right. How scary is that!?

But in his world he's the only one that is right. He can't find a single other person in the humberverse to back up his completely looney assertions.

 

[humber]

You've contradicted yourself. KE = (1/2)mv². If v=0, KE=0.

And what makes you think that it is not 'm' that is zero? Why not?

And this;
V1= 20m/s .Let's make that 0.
V1 = 0
KE = (1/2)m(-20)². If v=0, KE= real number +++

That's been explained probably 50 times to you already. And it doesn't "go" anywhere - if Moscow is 30 miles east of my current location, and I travel 40 miles east so that it's 10 miles west, where did those miles go?

That's not anything to do with frame of reference. Co-ordinate geometry, perhaps.
It seems to me that if I pick up the cart from the treadmill and haul it back to my 'view'. It has no KE. So does it leave it behind? No, it's all relative, you say. If that's true, how come that is still hangs on to the KE stored in the propellor and wheels, but not the chassis?

Totally wrong. And -4J... you have no clue.

I was using examples and notions used in this thread. Not my ideas.
Perhaps you can tell other posters why that is wrong.

You have no idea what "reference frame" means.

This is really boring.

You performed the same subtraction at the top of your post. 'Works' quite well for two objects...

 

[humber]

I'm beginning to believe humber believes he's right. How scary is that!?

But in his world he's the only one that is right. He can't find a single other person in the humberverse to back up his completely looney assertions.

Like Diogenes. Still, name that academic that supports you.
Looney assertions? As always your arguments are a monument to your capacities, a veritable warning beacon.

 

[humber]

You have never "challenged me directly" in any way whatever. I've never run away in any way whatever. I have one simple question for you:

You can't cover your traces. You gave a limp wristed response to my porch ideas. The usual simple denial, along with some canned remarks about frames of reference. If you think that I have completed that argument, perhaps you would like to pick it up again. I've got several lines of attack behind the pawns.